LECTURA 3 (2016)Ejercicio Inglés
Vista previa del texto
María Aperador Montoya
READING 3. DEVIANT PLACES: A
THEORY OF THE ECHOLOGY OF
1. Sintetiza la respuesta que da el autor a la pregunta que se hace en la introducción del
artículo “How is that neighborhoods can remain the site of high crime and deviance rates
despite a complete turnover in their pupulations” (p.893)
The author wonders why the districts continue to maintain high rates of crime and deviant
behavior, if the population is constantly changing. The first idea that comes up to the author’s
mind is the fact that there is no relationship between the deviant behavior and people which
live in that type of neighborhood, instead of that, he thinks the real relationship is focus on
the place where they live in.
In the text are exposed five different factors that respond to the question set forth above. The first one is related to the density, which principle aim is the fact that those neighborhoods with a highest density, people which live in them, will not have any contact with their neighbors. The author also explain the consequences of living in a crowed family which some of them are the lack of vigilance by relatives who often leads to school failure and lack of privacy that this entails making teens want to leave home and thus develop a deviant behavior.
The second factor is related to poverty, it is said in the text that the poorest people are usually those who live in the commercial sections of the city. When poor people achieve a high income they move to another section of the city, so this makes new people come to the neighborhood in the same conditions as above. That leads to the fact that there is no attachments between persons and their district (causing a higher likelihood of the appearance of deviant behavior). Poverty is a consequence that causes a tendency to appear mixed-used neighborhoods (which is the third component part).
María Aperador Montoya Teories criminologiques For instance, if a young poor male wants to steal in a shop, will not have to ask his parents for a ride, in purely residential districts there simply are far fewer conventional opportunities, but it is not the only think, teenagers go to places of potential moral marginality where people can congregate. When people, especially young males, congregate and have nothing special to do, the incidence of their deviance is increased greatly. Moreover, poor, dense, mixedused neighborhoods have high transience rates (fourth element) because there is no attachment with the community.
And finally the last element which answers the author’s question is that a community with all of that factors previously exposed, tend to be dilapidated, an example for that could be that houses are not well-kept, dirty, and so on.
2. Realiza un diagrama de la teoría del autor en el que se incluyan variables estructurales e individuales a partir de las proposiciones de la teoría María Aperador Montoya Teories criminologiques 3. Comenta las diferencias entre la teoría ecológica del autor y la teoría de la escuela de Chicago Authors in recent years are in the current ecological investigated whether social disorganization variables used by the “Escuela de Chicago” remain the most relevant to explain the spread of crime between areas (Cid & Larrauri, 2001, p. 91).
The “Escuela de Chicago” did research on Juvenile delinquency in which it was found that the characteristics of the most criminal areas turned out to be the following ones: a) predominates born outside, with a high percentage of recent arrivals population, b) they have declining population, c) in them, there is a lower income city, d) they suffer more a greater extent than other areas of the city other social problems (Cid & Larrauri, 2001, p. 83).
After developing the theory, authors of the “Escuela de Chicago” said that the factors that produce the tendency of being more delinquency in central areas of a city were the following: a) poverty, b) physical deterioration, c) high mobility, d) high cultural heterogeneity and e) higher rate of adult crime.
Compared to the theory of STARK there are many factors that exposed the authors of the Chicago School that are missing in the latest theory, as well as there are factors that are added.
For instance, STARK did not mention the relation between adult crime and the possibility that young male could develop a deviant behavior. Additionally, the concept of formal and informal control is added. That is, STARK is aware of the problem that the police tend to concentrate more activity in some areas than in others. It seems, according to empirical research by the authors of the Chicago School, the differential between areas crime is primary way a police construction (it is, a product of selective policing).
Another difference is that Chicago School incurs the designation of ecological fallacy. Incur the possibility that people who live in disorganized communities are more likely to commit crimes, therefore it attributed to individuals the qualities of the context. Furthermore, the María Aperador Montoya Teories criminologiques Chicago School were based on the recent growth of cities which currently no longer serve to explain the crime in other realities. (Cid & Larrauri, 2001, p. 88). One of the factors that the authors treat Chicago school is the ethnic heterogeneity, which is not a factor in itself, despite the fact that after it was empirically explained.
STARK mentioned different factors which are, poverty, density, mixed-use, transience and dilapidation. He exposed other factors that made the difference with Chicago school, a factor not mentioned by it, is the family structure in which parent’s work, young to be subject to less parental control, tend to spend more time in the street, increasing the likelihood of coming into contact with people who carry out a lifestyle range. Additionally, STARK in his work has highlighted the importance of the density of the neighborhood. As he points out, the densest neighborhood has several disruptive consequences. Finally, when it comes to understanding mobility flows between communities the importance of the rate of delinquency in the neighborhood stands.
4. Comenta y reflexiona acerca de la proposición II que propone el autor.
The interactions are displayed in such a way they are dependent upon situational expectations that effect conduct of the individual “actors” participating in the communicative exchange.
Thus, in every situation involving communication with others, we all assume roles.
(Sannicolas, 1997). Therefore, as pointed Goffman, we all have and interpret some roles in the society. The principle problem is that in dense neighborhoods is much more difficult to keep up appearances. Everyone knows about everyone and thus the moral cynicism is affected and altered. People in those dense communities are not respected by the others whereas in societies where there is no population density, there is much more respect.
This is because if you, for instance, live in an apartment and constantly you are listening to your neighbors quarreling or even you are listening all intimacies that are carried out, there comes a time when the barrier of what is private and what is no dissipates. Adolescents grow up in an environment in which some behaviors are considerate as normal, these same behaviors in those non-dense communities are not at all considered as such. Thus, people which grow up in those environments so disorganized and so lacking of educational objectivity and informal control, they are more likely to develop criminal behavior because they do not find the limits of what is socially frowned upon.
María Aperador Montoya Teories criminologiques Words: 1205 Bibliography Cid Moliné, J., & Pijoan Larrauri, Elena. (2001). Teorías Criminológicas (1.a ed.). Bosch, S.A.
Sannicolas, N. (1997, septiembre 23). Cybersoc: Issue 1 - Erving Goffman,Dramaturgy,and On-Line Relationships. Recuperado 18 de octubre de 2016, a partir de http://www.cybersociology.com/files/1_2_sannicolas.html R.Stark (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25/4: 893909 ...